한국의 의료개혁과 민주적 전문성
Health Care Reform and Democratic Expertise in South Korea
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The evidence advisory system (EAS) is often criticized for serving to legitimize governmentpreferredpolicies rather than facilitating independent deliberation. Underlying this critique is a morefundamental question: Is expertise compatible with democratic governance? This article addressesthat question by advancing two arguments in support of democratic expertise. First, drawingon theories of deliberative democracy, it argues that the epistemic authority of experts dependslargely on the active judgment of citizens. The formation of expert consensus, which is central toEAS operations, is discussed as a working example. Second, using the framework of the politics ofevidence, it contends that the legitimacy of the EAS hinges on institutional arrangements that enablethe effective and democratic use of evidence. Together, these arguments clarify how ordinary citizenscan develop the deliberative capacities needed to engage critically with expert knowledge.
Abstract
The evidence advisory system (EAS) is often criticized for serving to legitimize governmentpreferredpolicies rather than facilitating independent deliberation. Underlying this critique is a morefundamental question: Is expertise compatible with democratic governance? This article addressesthat question by advancing two arguments in support of democratic expertise. First, drawingon theories of deliberative democracy, it argues that the epistemic authority of experts dependslargely on the active judgment of citizens. The formation of expert consensus, which is central toEAS operations, is discussed as a working example. Second, using the framework of the politics ofevidence, it contends that the legitimacy of the EAS hinges on institutional arrangements that enablethe effective and democratic use of evidence. Together, these arguments clarify how ordinary citizenscan develop the deliberative capacities needed to engage critically with expert knowledge.